Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Small business owners say they're pressured to hire off-duty cops for security

minnesotareformer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 606 posts

Re: Small business owners say they're pressured to hire off-duty cops for security

#541

Post by some_random »

danny_codes wrote: post #531
hellojesus wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a saying, "An armed society is a polite society." The reason is because of perceived threat. If very few people are armed, people are more likely to act a fool because they don't fear the consequences from npcs. Risk taking along these lines increases as does the physical delta. But as the probability of random npc folks carrying approaches one, suddenly there is a very real chance that acting a fool carries…

Except for the fact that this doesn't work at all in practice, it makes perfect sense.

Would you like to provide a source for that?

Re: Small business owners say they're pressured to hire off-duty cops for security

#542

Post by some_random »

giantg2 wrote: post #383
edrxty wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty eye opening to watch every bill pushed through in the name of firearm safety turning out to have massive exemptions for off duty and retired cops. They're such a powerful political force that it's outright expected they should have a disproportionate ability to deliver force even after they're retired .

Most of the reason for cops being security and being excluded from most firearms safety bills is because rhey already have a credential that was more strenuous to achieve than what the proposed bill is. That training, whether effective or not, is also seen to mitigate risks around litigation when they work security due to how our courts work (how things look can be more important). Although there are other laws that…

You can take a look at Minneapolis to see how well those credentials work. Police very obviously cannot be trusted with a monopoly over violence.

Re: Small business owners say they're pressured to hire off-duty cops for security

#543

Post by rgblambda »

Daviey wrote: post #146

I'm constantly surprised that the US allows off-duty police to "moonlight" as security. What is worse, many states seem to allow them to wear both their uniform and retain their police powers, whilst being paid in a private capacity. Which other countries allow this?

In a number of countries, events that take place in public spaces can hire the police service as security. A key difference is that it's the police department itself that you're paying, not individual officers.

Re: Small business owners say they're pressured to hire off-duty cops for security

#544

Post by senderista »

School-Cotton wrote: post #482
senderista wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I learned that I was suspicious that Chauvin was settling some personal score (and that explained why Floyd seemed to believe that Chauvin was going to kill him), but I don't know if any evidence for that came to light. Possibly an under-investigated angle, I'm not sure.

> and that explained why Floyd seemed to believe that Chauvin was going to kill him This is more simply explained by the fact that Chauvin was in fact killing him.

I'm referring to what happened before Chauvin had him on the ground.

Re: Small business owners say they're pressured to hire off-duty cops for security

#545

Post by senderista »

slim wrote: post #370
senderista wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I learned that I was suspicious that Chauvin was settling some personal score (and that explained why Floyd seemed to believe that Chauvin was going to kill him), but I don't know if any evidence for that came to light. Possibly an under-investigated angle, I'm not sure.

if you recognize someone from a previous job, even if he committed a crime, would you kill him if he did not represent any danger ?

If you hated him enough and thought you could kill him with impunity? Certainly some would.

Re: Small business owners say they're pressured to hire off-duty cops for security

#546

Post by lacoolj »

School-Cotton wrote: post #484
thmsths wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very naive question: why did Federal law enforcement not get involved?

Federal law enforcement (FBI etc) has a tiny amount of manpower compared to local police. In theory the national guard could have been called in but that would be a huge escalation and I doubt the elected officials wanted to go there.

I feel like blowing up the mayor's house is a pretty big escalation

Re: Small business owners say they're pressured to hire off-duty cops for security

#547

Post by Apocryphon »

WalterBright wrote: post #408
NickC25 wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever been to a small town in America? Outside of a few regions, Walmart is all they have...so that sort of nixes points 2 and 3. Regarding point 4, and your quoting of me - yes, people have. And some have been lucky in that they've made themselves multigenerational wealth in doing so. The guy who founded Costco did it, and made himself over a billion dollars. However, the Waltons have hundreds of times that…

> Have you ever been to a small town in America? Outside of a few regions, Walmart is all they have...so that sort of nixes points 2 and 3. Yeah, I've lived in them. My dad was in the AF, and (to save money) my parents would shop on the nearest AF base, which was maybe 30 miles away. They'd go once every 2 weeks or so and fill up the car with groceries. The indisputable point is people prefer to shop at Walmart. Nobo…

It lobbies just like any other corporate giant.

https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/issues?...

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/walmart-lobbyists_b_3632526

On the far right front, here's what I found:

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Walmart_and_Politics

https://www.ufcw.org/press-releases/new-report-on-political-...

> A new report issued Tuesday shows that Walmart and the Walton family that founded and controls the company have dramatically increased their political contributions over the last decade and that the vast majority of those contributions have gone to Republicans and right-wing causes, including anti-gay, anti-environment and pro-gun politicians and causes. The report asserts that Walmart, the world’s largest private employer, and the Walton family have spent over $17 million in federal elections and millions more on state and local initiatives. Since the 2000 election cycle, more than $11.6 million—69% of Walmart and the Waltons’ contributions—has gone to Republican candidates and committees. At the same time, 83% of the Waltons’ contributions, including their contributions to Super PACs, went to Republicans.

> The report further underscores Walmart and the Waltons’ turn to the right and shows that political contributions doesn’t simply stop at supporting Republicans; in 2008, Jim Walton gave $75,000 to the Arkansas Family Council Action Committee, which at the time was supporting a ballot measure to prevent gay families from adopting. Meanwhile, 94% of the Walton family’s contributions to candidates from 2000 to 2012 went to those who were opposed to or silent on the issue of marriage equality.

The report is archived here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130715154825/http://makingchan...

Re: Small business owners say they're pressured to hire off-duty cops for security

#548

Post by exclusiv »

pkulak wrote: post #540
Jerrrry wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why you should practice carry and conceal, and hopefully never have to draw on it. You can always just give the muggers everything, including your gun. You can't barter back your (or your family's) life, and putting the massive asymmetry in the benefit of the doubt of a known assailant is maddeningly naive to a point of near literal cuckoldry.

If I'm always giving the mugger my gun, why carry it? Seems like the danger from having a gun on my person and in my house vastly outnumbers the chance I become Dirty Harry for an evening, no matter how thrilling that thought is. And I won't be Dirty Harry, I'll be Bernie Goetz. No thanks. > asymmetry in the benefit of the doubt of a known assailant is maddeningly naive to a point of near literal cuckoldry Don't try…

> If I'm always giving the mugger my gun, why carry it?

That's just your perspective and talking point. Parent was clearly trying to say that there may be a situation where you DO need it to protect yourself or family from being killed/raped/etc.

Re: Small business owners say they're pressured to hire off-duty cops for security

#549

Post by adammarples »

hellojesus wrote: post #511
earthscienceman wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you tell me, with sincere curiosity, how you expect being able to buy modern handguns to make America less violent? I ask as a gun owner.

There's a saying, "An armed society is a polite society." The reason is because of perceived threat. If very few people are armed, people are more likely to act a fool because they don't fear the consequences from npcs. Risk taking along these lines increases as does the physical delta. But as the probability of random npc folks carrying approaches one, suddenly there is a very real chance that acting a fool carries…

And as usual Americans fail to spot that they have one of the best armed and least polite societies in the world. I'd put the case that a polite society is unarmed.

Re: Small business owners say they're pressured to hire off-duty cops for security

#550

Post by [deleted] »

exclusiv wrote: post #548
pkulak wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I'm always giving the mugger my gun, why carry it? Seems like the danger from having a gun on my person and in my house vastly outnumbers the chance I become Dirty Harry for an evening, no matter how thrilling that thought is. And I won't be Dirty Harry, I'll be Bernie Goetz. No thanks. > asymmetry in the benefit of the doubt of a known assailant is maddeningly naive to a point of near literal cuckoldry Don't try…

> If I'm always giving the mugger my gun, why carry it? That's just your perspective and talking point. Parent was clearly trying to say that there may be a situation where you DO need it to protect yourself or family from being killed/raped/etc.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN